 |
 |
John, My response to the post by Dave was actually about broader issues which I felt his comments raised regarding research in general, and not your project specifically, which I know about only from a brief report on Radio 4 and Dave's comments. I haven't created any divisions, just commented on the fact that Spokes appear to disagree with CTC. That said, I have never experienced the world of cycling advocacy as homogeneous in its views and that's not a bad thing. Anyway, I thought the general implications for research might be an interesting issue to discuss on the list, but unfortunately nobody else seems to want to get involved. Oh well. Paul on 23/9/09 8:37 AM, Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Paul, > > a) Yes, the answers are not clear cut. The research slowly but surely tackles > aspects which provide evidence where previously there was merely conjecture and > anecdotal evidence. > b) Yes, the concerns are intersting, but what happens is, as I pointed out in my > last email, people read far more into the research than was originally there in > order to peddle their own opinions > c) The research does not propose certain dimensions for cycle lanes, it was > beyond the scope of the question which was considered and remains one of the > gaps I noted in my last email: that is still work which usefully could be looked > into. > d) It is strange of you to create divisions between cycle advocates where none > exist before the research in question and, so far as I can tell, none exist > after the research in question. (Of course many of the thousands of words > generated on this subject bear no relation to the original research and of > course I cannot be held responsible for people not properly informing themselves > about the original research, or misinterpreting it.) > e) Publicity is always difficult to handle. I have already said to Dave Du Feu > that I think the Times did a brilliant job in reporting it in a really well > balanced and accurate way: it is all the discussion forums that followed that > which seem to be reading more into it than is in fact there. We all develop our > skills with the media with experience. In this instance it has been a generally > very positive experience. > f) It has its origins in some unscientific work done by the Warrignton Cycle > Campaign. I talked with them about what they had done, and carried through the > research on a more scientific basis (and this is no disaparagement to them). It > also leads on from Walker's work and fills some of the gaps there. It was also > discussed wth CTC. Just because it has not been discussed with every cycle > campaigner who has an interest in this area does not make it inappropriate. I > understand what you mean about processes being value laden (and in fact all the > big words too!), the reader of the research can be the judge of that if he or > she so wishes by reading the original research which spells out the approach > taken in coming to the point of doing the work. > g) Of course researchers think these things through. What evidence do you have > to the contrary? > > There we go, another few hundred words on the subject :) > Dr John Parkin > Reader in Transport Engineering and Planning > Department of the Built Environment > The University of Bolton > Deane Road, Bolton, BL3 5AB, UK > Tel 01204 903027 Fax 01204 399074 mob 07903 523 017 > www.bolton.ac.uk/staff/jp10 > > ________________________________ > > From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list on behalf of Paul Rosen > Sent: Wed 23/09/2009 12:25 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Passing distances to cycle traffic with and without cycle lanes > > Come on, John, the words weren't that big for an academic discussion list! > > As somebody who is fairly removed from the worlds of cycling advocacy, > policy and even research at the moment, I was just interested to see a > discussion/debate where the answers aren't clearcut, and the concerns > raised are actually a bit more interesting than the surface question of > whether cycle lanes should be x metres wide or y metres. Here we have a > situation where a piece of research supporting one group of cycling > advocates is disputed by another group, compounded by publicity that > leads to apparent misinterpretation of the whole thing anyway. > > The questions that interest me here are things like: how and by whom was > the need/gap you mention identified, and how did the research question > get designed to answer this need - and by extension what approach might > have been taken had a different group of people been involved in this > process? If you know the media is hard to tame, are there different > ways of dealing with/managing them (which Dave suggests)? I don't know > whether the approaches you took with problem definition, research design > and media engagement were right or wrong, but I do think researchers > need to think these kinds of things through at the start of the process. > > Paul > > Parkin, John wrote: >> Paul, >> >> My research came out of a need as a policy engaged advocate and to do some > appropriate science. There was a gap (and there remain gaps) to fill in this > area. All those big words you use are exactly what has happened. I have to say > the original paper was written in about 6,000 words. Frankly I am absolutely > flabergasted at the enormous number of additional words it has generated in > discussion forums and the media. Some of these words have been well informed. > Others have been extremely ill informed and highly opinionated. And of course it > goes without saying that the media is a beast that is hard to tame.... >> >> >> Dr John Parkin >> Reader in Transport Engineering and Planning >> Department of the Built Environment >> The University of Bolton >> Deane Road, Bolton, BL3 5AB, UK >> Tel 01204 903027 Fax 01204 399074 mob 07903 523 017 >> www.bolton.ac.uk/staff/jp10 >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list on behalf of Paul > Rosen >> Sent: Tue 22/09/2009 8:43 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Passing distances to cycle traffic with and without cycle lanes >> >> >> >> Dave and everybody else, >> >> Stepping back a little from the immediate issues you raise, I think your >> piece raises some interesting points about how to define >> valid/legitimate research questions, and the relationship of science (in >> its broadest sense) to policy. This seems to me to go back to the >> thorny question of to what extent scientists are responsible for the >> uses to which their research is put, as well as what perspectives and >> which stakeholders etc should be taken into account in designing >> research (especially given the need to show user engagement when >> applying for research funding). Given that cycling is such a complex >> and sometimes contradictory research field these are important questions >> for cycling researchers to grapple with when designing projects. That >> said, I'm not sure there are easy answers, but it's good to see John's >> research is perhaps sparking some methodological/epistemological debates >> for this list to grapple with, as well as practical ones. Any comments, >> anyone? >> >> Paul >> >> >> Dave du Feu wrote: >> >>> I am concerned (though not surprised) at the message being given by >>> the publicity around this interesting research. I have prepared a >>> paper outlining my concerns, which you can find at... >>> >>> > http://www.spokes.org.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=DownloadsPlus&file=index&re > q=viewdownload&cid=20&orderby=dateD >>> >>> [or find it at www.spokes.org.uk in downloads - technical] >>> >>> Dave du Feu >>> Spokes, the Lothian Cycle Campaign >>> >>> >>> >>> 2009/9/10 Parkin, John <[log in to unmask]>: >>> >>> >>>> With apologies for cross-posting. >>>> >>>> The Times ran an article and editorial today on the different passing > distances to cycle traffic with and without cycle lanes based on the work of > Ciaran Meyers and myself. >>>> >>>> The Radio has picked it up and there may be something on Radio 4 "pm" > programme, and Radio five live drive time. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr John Parkin >>>> Reader in Transport Engineering and Planning >>>> Department of the Built Environment >>>> The University of Bolton >>>> Deane Road, Bolton, BL3 5AB, UK >>>> Tel 01204 903027 Fax 01204 399074 mob 07903 523 017 >>>> www.bolton.ac.uk/staff/jp10 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> > > >