There’s an op-ed piece by Katie Dunlop in The Age today on an important topic of family violence, and more specifically violence committed by intimate partners. She argues that it is, presently, poorly covered by the media and proposes some solutions to ensure the issue gets the media prominence it should have, given its sad impact on so many lives.
Along the way she cites some statistics from “a recent Victorian study” about the prevalence of such violence, and misconceptions of the gender breakdown of the victims of such crime:
If you are surprised at the extent of IPV, you are not alone. Our awareness of IPV in Australia is very poor. According to a recent Victorian study, many think that women abuse their partners as much as men (false: men are the perpetrators 98 per cent of the time) or that IPV is excusable if it represents a “temporary loss of control”, or if the abuser subsequently apologises (false: many IPV incidents, especially murders, are premeditated).
This is a topic I’m trying to learn more about so I can cover it better on LP (at some point, amongst other things, I’ll do a post on the 2008 changes to Victoria’s family violence laws), so I’d like the chance to read this relevant work. If Ms. Dunlop had posted on a blog, presumably she would have linked to the study, so interested readers could have had a look; if it were a scholarly article, the source would of course been cited. But, because it’s a newspaper and the name of the study isn’t mentioned, there’s no way to follow up.
I appreciate newspapers aren’t scholarly articles, and they don’t have space in their dead tree editions for the kind of detailed referencing that academic writing does. But a couple of minutes providing links to key sources would greatly increase the utility of the piece for those who have further interest, and it would be trivial to do online.
Heck, the ABC’s 4 Corners program routinely provides links to background material online – for instance, take a look at this example. So would it be so hard for newspapers to provide a similar service?
CORRECTION: The original version of this piece wrongly attributed the op-ed to Katie Holden. I clearly need a subbie.
When you read a report in an online edition of The Sydney Morning Herald or The Australian there is often a link to the source document. The Age is particularly negligent in this respect and if your background knowledge is better than the reporter its very annoying
Such references would also greatly increase the credibility of the article if the reference was to a reputable source, and would show up op-ed RWDBs like Bettina Arndt who are fond of asserting that “the latest research” supports whatever Culture War trope they’re pushing, without enlightening us as to who did the research, where it was published and how reputable it is.
here’s something
http://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/Law+Reform/Home/Completed+Projects/Family+Violence/LAWREFORM+-+Review+of+Family+Violence+Laws+-+Report
The Monthly often publishes citations online, too. It’s a good practice, and enhances the value of the publication.
I agree, Robert, and it’s something that annoys me, too. The Economist manages to include relevant citations – reports, studies, books, etc. – as a footnote in small font. References can be provided in very little space, and I don’t see why opinion writers should neglect including them.
Thanks Ambi.
I am doing my remedial reading…
The wording in the op-ed of a “recent Victorian study” suggests that it may be unpublished research, possibly the result of a survey carried out by an NGO. But it’s also difficult to know how recent “recent” is – a piece of peer-reviewed research can take years to become publicly available, so “recent” in the research world tends to mean something different to the more common usage.
I would suggest that the best spot to look would be on APO, as they list lots of government and NGO reports. I’m not aware of any local peer-reviewed research which has focused on these issues, but then it’s a broad enough field that it’s easy to miss things. I know there has been some work done in Victoria for the Victorian Government around rape myths, which may have also addressed questions about domestic violence.
As to the main point that op-eds should cite sources, I agree, but then very few non op-ed media reports list easily identifiable sources. Having had some of my own published research quoted in the media, I’m sometimes at a loss to identify even where some of the stuff I’m quoted as saying comes from. Makes it much easier to put the desired spin on it, I guess.
Sure. But the source of claims in an op-ed is crucial when evaluating it.
I agree entirely with Paul’s comment (and would just add that RWDBs, while they make an art form of the practice, aren’t the only offenders).
Dr Faustus, I think you pegged it: easier to put the desired spin on it
All too often journalists are just looking for a hook to hang their argument on. It’s irritating to have an interviewer ask the same question repeatedly until they get the exact quote that they have written in already. I have resorted to asking what they want and offering to give it to them if they’ll publish a 20 word sentence of mine as well. Never works, oddly enough.
The Victorian Law Reform Commission did an extensive study (see gargantuan link above) which covered the legal system’s response the family violence, using Victorian and other States (and overseas) experience. They studied published reports and articles. Commission staff consulted with victims’ support groups, inc womens’ shelters; Victoria Police, magistracy, etc.
They studied the prevalence of violence. They looked at abuse other than physical abuse. They recommended changes to Victorian law, and to court procedures (e.g. to allow victims to give evidence under less stress). Many of the suggestions were enacted in law.
“Recent” can have a wide range of meanings.
Moz, it’s not just the journos. I’ve had quite a few experiences where a media release contains some “hook” that makes it sound like they have a particularly exciting story. When I interview the scientist it often turns out that the publicity department has distorted their research to make it fit the theme they want to run. The scientists are often quite relieved to find I’m willing to go with what they are actually saying, not what the PR people pushed.
It’s frustrating enough when the real research isn’t actually that much of a big deal (to a layperson). Sometimes however, an equally good story gets buried because the PR people wanted to tell a different one.
I think Katie Holden is quoting from research conducted by VicHealth – Two steps forward one step back Community attitudes to violence against women. The report is on their website http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/en/Programs-and-Projects/Mental-Health-and-Wellbeing/Preventing-Violence/Violence-Against-Women-Community-Attitudes-Survey.aspx
Its part of suite of research they have done re the incidence and prevention of violence against women
If that link doesn’t work start here http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/Programs-and-Projects/Mental-Health-and-Wellbeing/Preventing-Violence.aspx
The report linked by Helena@12 was the one I was thinking of.
Katie Dunlop. Kate Holden is the one who does op-eds in the arts section of the Saturday Age.
My first thought was that it is the same study that Nic Gruen started a cyclone with over a Troppo a while back.
On the question of why newspapers don’t cite (and I agree with everyone else, it would be wonderful if they did) I suspect it’s pre-internet habits overlapping with post-internet lack of resources. Currently it would be astonishing if Fairfax had funds to pay staff to code citations into their online version. They seem to be cutting a frightening number of corners already. And I can understand why citation hasn’t been part of what print newspapers do – not only are the citations themselves really bulky and long, citing a report like the VicHealth one meant citing a government document that was difficult to access.
It’s no solution to say that most journalists will answer questions of this sort.
On another note, the comments Katie Dunlop (not Katie Holden) makes about the report remind me of the Thread of Doom six months ago at Troppo. Robert if you intend writing about IPV at LP in future it might be of some interest to you. Take a sick bag.
Robert, if you want to find out more about gendered violence in Australia go to the websites below:
http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au
http://www.dvrc.org.au
From there you can skip into other places, Helena’s report above and site will get you into midst of things.
There is no shortage of infomation, it just rarely gets mentioned in context.
I think it dates from the pre-interwebs days when what newspapers mostly published was news or analysis and not this endless, mostly useless (because there is no space to develop argument, tease out nuance, or use words of more than two syllables) opinionification. And I’d be willing to bet that if any journalist did put in a properly identified citation, the subs would take it straight out again — it’s just not newspaper style. Broadsheets would let you get away with ‘a University of Woop Woop study’ or ‘a report from two Oonagalabie scientists’ or whatever, but probably nothing more than that.
On that, I recently sold an essay to a broadsheet which had a direct quote from a report by a state government body in it. Quote was changed to paraphrase and the footnote was cut, but I was allowed to add in enough info about what the report was so that, hopefully, anyone interested could track it down. I just compared versions and the footnoted one used less words!
I like the idea of a little quarter-page in the back somewhere called ‘references’. Articles themselves could carry no citations, but be linked to the various sources for anyone willing to try to make sense of it all.
It may well be a subbing issue also – if the columnist didn’t mention it in her print column (and I agree she should have) then I doubt whoever would have chucked it up on the site would have bother to backcheck with her to get a link.
Alternatively, it could be that she intends to file another piece elsewhere (or later) on the same research and didn’t mention it lest she get gazzumped before she can get another round out of it.
Also, Qld Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research does some great work in this area. A forthcoming Forum may be of interest to some reading this.
http://www.noviolence.com.au/
2009 Indigenous Family Violence Prevention Forum
The Big Picture – Putting the Pieces Together
The Indigenous Family Violence Prevention Forum is an annual event convened by CDFVR in conjunction with its Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Reference Group. Speakers for this year’s Forum include Professor Chris Cunneen, NewSouth Global Chair in Criminology, UNSW; Kerrie Tim, Indigenous Leadership and Engagement, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs; June Oscar, Fitzroy Crossing; and Pat Anderson, Chair Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health and co-author of Little Children are Sacred Report. Professor Steve Larkin, Pro-Vice Chancellor, Indigenous Leadership, Charles Darwin University will speak at the Forum Dinner.
http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/en/Programs-and-Projects/Mental-Health-and-Wellbeing/Preventing-Violence/Intimate-Partner-Violence.aspx is actually the study that came up with these figures.
This is hannah’s mum here. In fact there is 30 years of research into male violence against women and in some of my discussions with women working in this field regarding the AGe article there is some sarcasm that the writer has ‘discovered’ gendered violence when we have spent 30 years trying to get that message out there. It can frustrating to continually have to reiterate the same message over and over again. Given that, Robert if you are interested in learning more about this I would be more than happy to write a short piece for you, explaining the dynamics of male violence and citing the research.
Subbies can be funny things. I recall an article some years back on work/family issues which stated that the fertilist rate had “fallen from 1.8 per cent to 1.6 per cent”. The fertility rate is not a percentage, and the journalist was sufficiently on top of her material to have known this, so I concluded that the “per cent” was put in by a subbie who thought they knew better but didn’t.
Then there is the case of a sports report of an international Rugby League match in Tonga which was attended by the King of Tonga. This was reported with the original expression “even the King was there” being subbed to become “even ‘The King’, Wally Lewis, was there”.
…and they wonder why people are turning away from dead-tree editions to online which often has all those missing links.
They learn nothing.
Hannah’s Mum: I’ll be in touch…