We  should all thank Ted Harding for starting the first serious critique of
Radstat's concerns in 30 years!

To Ted's identification of Management-Speak I would add the use of
statistics as performance indicators.

David Byrne pointed out in the current issue of the Radstats journal that
performance indicators are widely used as instruments for the centralisation
of decision making and the denial of local participation in decision making.
The individuals and organizations whose performance is being measured are
aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the chosen measures.   But we
cannot assume that the public who are drawn into the assessment process
through the publication of league tables are informed users.   Nor can we
assume that all managers are informed users.   Yet managers, in the public
sector at least, are being urged to use performance indicators as tools of
management.   

In effect this gives new power to managers over subordinate individuals and
organizations.   It also gives power to those with the authority to produce
statistics centrally over individuals and organizations who are the
providers of the statistics.  The emphasis on measured performance has
created a hierarchy where none need exist.   Typically the new power is
based on statistics that emphasise the measurable aspects of performance and
derogate from those aspects that are not measured.   

This is a large area that could well be added to the list of Radstat's
concerned.

Ray Thomas
***********************************

-----Original Message-----
From: email list for Radical Statistics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Ted Harding
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:07 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Let's return to what RADSTSTS is about


[I had in fact crept quietly back on the list, initially because it was
easier than following what's going on by reading the archives. Ray Thomas's
statement below, however, prompts me to try to set out things I've been
thinking about for a good while, feeling that the time may finally be ripe
for consideration]

On 28-Jun-07 12:43:51, ray thomas wrote:
> The original statement of Radsats concerns printed on the inside cover 
> of the journal give Radstats a more distinctive identity. The concerns 
> are stated as:
> 
> * The mystifying use of technical language to disguise social problems 
> as technical ones.
> 
> * The lack of control by the community over the aims of statistical 
> investigations, the way these are conducted and the use of the 
> information produced.
> 
> *  The power structures within which statistical and research workers 
> are employed which control the work and how it is used.
> 
> *  The fragmentation of social problems into specialist fields, 
> obscuring connectednes.
> 
> This statement of concerns seems to me remarkably well-worded and 
> prescient. All of the problem areas identified are still with us. in 
> many areas they have become more important. And many of them are 
> echoed in recent list discussions.

The above is a welcome recall. They are among the reasons why (as a
statistician) I hopped onto the RadStats bus in the first place. Ray aptly
points out that these issues are becoming even more important and actual.

I could add a few, including:

* The deceptive use of "Management-Speak" to obfuscate such information as
there is, to deviate its relevance, and to turn conclusions on their heads.

Examples abound.

* The deliberate mis-recording of such information as there is, while
claiming that there is benefit in doing so.

A recent example is the recently publicised British Crime Survey rule of
capping the recorded number of repeat victimisation incidents at 5. For the
full report see:

[1]
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/CivitasReviewJun07.pdf

with a useful summary at:

[2]
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/service/publicity/news-releases/2007/89_crime.html

From [1]:
"The BCS Training Notes explain capping as follows:
    For 'series' incidents the number of incidents is
    capped at 5. Therefore if someone reports 10
    incidents in a 'series', only 5 are counted."

The benefit claimed for this capping (next sentence following the above) is:

   "The limit is to avoid extreme cases distorting the
    rates. (Budd and Mattinson 2000; 32)."

Budd, T. and J. Mattinson. 2000.
British Crime Survey Training Notes.
Crime Surveys Section, Crime and Criminal Justice Unit, Research and
Development Statistics Directorate.
London: Home Office.
[A copy of the Training Notes can be obtained from:
http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/doc/4081%5Cmrdoc%5Cpdf%5Ca4081ubb.pdf
The above quote can be found on page 32]

So, for the benefit of not distorting the rates, you distort the recording
of the data in the first place. Which has the additional benefit that any
audit trail of distortion is effaced. Unless you're clever about factory
chimneys in histograms -- see:

  Stella Cunliffe, Presidential Address to the RSS
  JRSS Series A, Vol. 139, No. 1. (1976), pp. 1-19.


To get back to Ray's message. He calls for a clarification of the objectives
of RadStats. The four concerns he quotes above can also be found on the
Radical Statistics website, provided you click on "What is Radical
Statistics?". On the top page, you find instead:

  "We believe that statistics can be used to support radical
   campaigns for progressive social change. Statistics should
   inform, not drive policies. Social problems should not be
   disguised by technical language."

One can have reservations about these wordings. The first and second
sentences could be construed as an invitation to abuse statistics for the
sake of a social or political agenda. While the third sentence does not say
anything potentially objectionable in itself, it should not be construed to
mean that "technical language" should be excluded from the discussion of
social problems -- often, the nature or extent of a problem can be most
clearly expressed in technical terms, at least in the first instance.

I cannot find at JISCMAIL any statement of the purpose of the RADSTATS list,
nor does any occur in the tailpiece appended to the list messages. So we
have to go to the Radical Statictics website to find out what it may be
about.

           * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I would like to see somewhere in the RadStats agenda a concern for
objectvitity, integrity, thoroughness, correctness and clarity in the use of
statistics, in relation to the social concerns which we share an interest in
(from one point of view or another).

Other people may have their own suggestions.

Among the issues arising in connection with any use of statistics is the
question of what they're about. This links into the presence of all sorts of
topics in our list. And you cannot be clear about what statistics are about
in relation to any topic unless you discuss the categories of discourse on
that topic. In many of our on-list discussions, our problems have stemmed
from inadequate concern for establishing a domain of discourse, and/or from
muddling the meanings of terms with prejudice about the "social
implications" of thse terms.

For example, I have no problem with using the word "race" in discussing
identifiable heritable differences between different groups of humans. That
is simply in parallel with the standard usage of the word in biology.

But I know from experience that the mere mention of "race" in a human
context can provoke some people into an angry reaction which implies that
they believe that the usage marks me as in sympathy with exploiting the
existence of such identities for the purposes of oppression, exploitation or
vilification of such groups; or that the usage would encourage others who do
want to do such things, and I would be responsible for that.

That could not be further from the truth. I rejoice in the variety of the
human races, also at the same time in their common humanity.

Such angry reactions, and consequent spiteful sniping, are, to my
impression, an instance of the muddling of meaning with prejudice.

I hope the recent culmination of events will stimulate a cooler and a
rational look at what we're here for.

With best wishes to all,
Ted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <[log in to unmask]>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861
Date: 28-Jun-07                                       Time: 17:06:53
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------

******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's 'Reply-to-All'
button to send your message automatically to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and
cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by
subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical
Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of
our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************

******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************