Recently I was made aware of the publication of findings of an important survey of young people. 

The headline from RNZ proclaimed “One in six young people face sexual harm – report”. 

 I found this curious for several reasons, the main reason being that the reported figure seemed unusually low.

This was a survey of over 9000 youth between the ages of 13 and 19, which is an impressive achievement to get such a large sample size of adolescents – an age group who I imagine would be most reluctant to bother with any sort of survey. 

Yet the reason for my surprise was that 1/6 translates roughly to 16.6%. While my own research enquires after specific acts and tactics underlying different types of sexual violations, 31% of all respondents (to my survey) indicated someone had touched their genitals without their consent for the very first time in their lives, when they were between the ages of 14 and 17.  Although I surveyed for multiple types of violations, this was the one with the highest figure among an age group roughly similar to that in the reported survey. 

Guided by my curiosity, I read the article for more information. I found that it was an MSD-funded survey, conducted by IPSOS, with the input of several government departments, and some private sector consultancy organisations. 

Now, I admit that I am somewhat naïve when it comes to the purpose of such publicly funded research, but I imagine it is to provide an evidence base for government policy and initiatives. If that is the case, then I also imagine it is highly desirable that such research provides as accurate a snapshot of our society as possible. I’ll circle back to that later. 

I then proceeded to look over the methodology of the survey, to uncover why their figure seemed lower than I would have expected. 

Were there any obvious concerns that meant this research, including its headline grabbing figure, were not as accurate as it could be? 

This is where I feel obliged, as a matter of professional courtesy, but also appreciation for anyone who ventures into this line of research, to point out what struck me as respectable and positive about this research. 

Firstly, the amount of detail that is publicly provided about this work is beyond what I consider gold standard. In this present era, we expect a considerable amount of transparency with research, especially following the replication crisis, through open science initiatives. The amount of information available is impressive. 

So, too, is the consideration around informed consent, with a great deal of attention paid to navigating scenarios when participants cannot be reasonably expected to be sufficiently informed, for developmental or other reasons. 

I was also impressed with how the survey sessions were conducted themselves, with a youth worker on hand to help deal with any distress that arises. With a survey that touches on difficult issues, it is important that someone trained and experienced in helping young people manage distress, anxiety, fear, and anything else that may come up – is a sign that humane considerations were reflected upon and planned in advance. As someone who has conducted research that does provoke distress in participants, I cannot state how relieved I was that this was considered. 

There are pros and cons to conducting this kind of research in the school setting, as far as my own work around disclosure is concerned. The pro is that the young respondents aren’t likely to have their answers censored by parents or guardians who are wary of a truthful response that may reflect badly upon them. Although I have no doubt that such a fear may have influenced their responses, the physical absence of a parent or guardian provides a certain sense of liberation when it comes to answering sensitive questions. That said, the physical proximity of peers can also result a type of self-censorship, particularly if the survey is conducted within the eyeline of a friend or peer. Despite that, I would still give this work a thumbs up as a school setting is probably the best, practical location, to ensure an honest answer for a survey that is completed in large gatherings at one time. 

I looked over the wording of the questions themselves, and sighed. There are three questions pertaining to sexual harm. 

However, before I proceed to dissect the questions themselves, I wish firstly to present my own understanding of the term ‘sexual harm’. It’s not a term I use often, although I have used it in the past to ‘soften’ the terminology around sensitive topics. I find that pearls are more likely to be left unclutched if one refers to sexual harm rather than rape or sexual assault. It’s a subjective term, an outcome – referring to distress and potential trauma after being sexually violated. For that reason, I don’t use this term often as I try to be objective in my work, focusing on all people who have been sexually violated – whether they found it harmful or not. 

Looking at the first question in the series, 

is one I had to reflect on for several reasons after reading it. Sexting isn’t something I have covered in my research, at least not what I understood the term to refer to. I understood the term to describe intimate discussions by some electronic means, such as text messaging or messaging in some online application. 
However, the survey provides a definition of what they mean: 

This is at odds with what I thought it was, as they clearly mean receiving unsolicited nudes or the sending of nudes. I find it unusual that both the sending and receiving are lumped together. When I was designing my survey in 2022, I followed the work of other researchers whose work is considered “gold standard”. Those researchers conceptualise sexual violation as something that occurs on a continuum or spectrum, rather than some dichotomous “it is or it isn’t” concept. In my case, I had “being a victim of voyeurism and nonconsensual intimate recordings” at the lower end of the violation spectrum (given the lack of physical contact involved in the violation itself) and what some may consider gang rape at the other end. I reflected, briefly, on whether I should consider receipt of nude images, unprompted and unwanted, as a violation worth including. Given that my work primarily focuses on disclosure of sexual violations, I considered that receiving a nude wasn’t likely to cause the kind of distress or potential trauma that motivates such disclosures. Being recorded in an intimate setting, without one’s consent, however, definitely was – and was a topical issue at the time I was compiling the survey. 

I guess my point here is that I find it unusual that this question would be asked, given that one scenario is likely to be much more distressing than another. I’m also unsure why this question was asked at all. It is the only question that asks about specific activities so it may be that they are looking to see how common this new means of sexual violation is. But the question itself could be more precise. When I was constructing my survey, I always came back to the question “what exactly is it that I want to know?” and “does this question tell me what I want to know?”. I’m not sure that question provides a specific answer to anything. 

Continuing with this question, I note they also provided a definition of what they mean by harmful: 

Note that I earlier stated I considered ‘harmful’ to be subjective, an outcome term, describing distress. This definition provides an objective definition of what they consider the word ‘harmful’ to denote. A definition, I must emphasise, that is at odds with the use of the term itself. For instance, if we consult the Oxford dictionary, they state “causing or likely to cause harm”. Their definition of harm then, contains several entries that I shan’t bore you with here, but they refer to “ill effects”, “material damage”, “physical injury” etc.

I do not wish to enter into any sort of debate about whether a lack of consent in sending or receiving nudes constitutes harm. No doubt there are people who argue that it is harmful even in the absence of any distress. My concern, rather, is about the tension between the typical understanding of the term “harmful” and the definition they provide. The fact that there is such a mismatch introduces ambiguity – something that must avoided or reduced to a bare minimum at all costs, especially when surveying young people. 

Why? 

Because victims of sexual violations, and especially young people, are extremely risk averse. If they are uncertain whether their situation can appropriately fall under the label you have provided, most will conclude it does not match this label, and conceal their experience by answering in the negative. 

You need to spell out exactly what you mean. If a young person had nude photographs of them sent to other people, but they weren’t sure if it was strictly consensual, or they weren’t sure if others would call it harmful, then they aren’t going to tell you about it. They’ll clam up and you have confounded your results before you’ve even deployed your survey. This kind of research requires you to be as specific as possible, to reduce ambiguity as much as possible, so your respondents aren’t left trying to figure out if their experience qualifies as the thing you’re asking about. 

The next question was about porn consumption and isn’t strictly about victimisation, but the next two questions were: 

I’m not sure why the question about porn was included but I suspect it was to specifically look at potentially harmful effects of porn exposure among young people, and if so, then it’s a worthy item to include. The wording, however, is still quite vague. I specifically take issue with word pressure as that does not come with an accompanying definition. Even with adults, such a word needs to be elaborated upon. For example, in my own survey where I have an item that asks about verbal coercion and wording itself refers to “verbal pressure” there is an accompanying list of examples that include lies, threats, and nagging. So, again, with young people such an inclusion would be even more important here. 

My critique of the final question is probably obvious by now. Firstly, it’s a double-barrelled question. These are fine for screening questions, but if there are no follow up questions, these should ideally be separated. However, one thing I can appreciate is that over 100 questions have been asked by this stage, and fatigue and indifference might be setting in among a young person who just wants to get through this survey. In that light, lumping things into a single question for the sake of parsimony may be considered a virtue – and I wouldn’t disagree with that kind of argument. 

Secondly, we go back to the question “what is it that we want to know” from such a question? I suspect we want to know if the young person has been sexually violated. Does this question tell us this? Yes, but it could be significantly refined to increase the likelihood of getting an accurate response. 

What could be done to reduce ambiguity in that question? 

Getting rid of vague terms like “sexual way” and “sexual things” and spell out exactly what you mean. Admittedly, my own survey question that pertains to non-consensual touching is quite lengthy and I would not recommend it worded in this way for a young person, but as an example of how you can increase the chance that someone who has actually been touched responds in the affirmative, it states: 

By explicitly stating the scenarios you are referring to, you reduce ambiguity.

I am not sure if the sentence referring to sexual abuse or rape was included in the question itself or is some sort of administrative note, but if it was added, that too would foster concealment of an accurate answer. By including loaded terms, where the definitions themselves vary so much over time, by country, or even between conversations, as to render them nebulous, you introduce a great deal of ambiguity, which as I keep highlighting, confounds your findings.

To bring this full circle, to answer my question about whether this research provides an accurate snapshot of society as possible – after an admittedly lengthy reflection, I cannot say that it does. There is much to admire and respect about this endeavour, but when it comes to interpreting the sexual harm aspect of this work – I find myself unable to articulate what the reported figures are actually reporting.