The readers' editor on… web-savvy readers holding journalists to account
An apparently innocuous article that used an item of research to gently poke fun at educational research in general brought a sharp response from one reader who saw it as a classic example of "churnalism". Churnalism is the neologism coined to describe the recycling of press releases by overstretched or lazy journalists who add nothing or very little before publication.
This is the opening paragraph of the column in question, which appeared on 1 February in G2: "Research now suggests that girls do better in warmer classrooms. Heavenly news for the Girls' Day School Trust [GDST], the group of 26 independent schools behind this finding, but what if we want to keep our girls and boys in the same classroom? It won't be easy, now that we have this temperature problem (24C for girls, 21C for boys) on top of all the other differences."
Mark Bain, a teacher, wrote: "It's disappointing that the Guardian journalist failed to take even the most basic steps to verify this claim. While clearly aimed at being witty and entertaining, rather than scientifically rigorous, the piece accepts the claims at face value." In print there was no link to the GDST website, although there is online. So the reader traced the research on room temperature that was quoted. "It clearly contradicts claims made in the article [that the research was new]," he wrote.
Bain followed links to a 2006 article by Leonard Sax, author of the book Why Gender Matters. Dr Sax's article provides the following source to support the assertion about class temperatures: MY Beshir and JD Ramsey, Comparison between Male and Female Subjective Estimates of Thermal Effects and Sensations, Applied Ergonomics 12 (1981): 29-33. "In other words," Bain wrote, "the [Guardian's] article is based on research carried out over 30 years ago. Many of us rely on the mainstream media to keep us informed of advances in science, even when those advances impact upon our own field." He believes that as a result, there will be educators who accept the claims without further investigation. He would like the piece withdrawn and an apology.
Michele Hanson, the writer of the column, told me: "I concluded that Sax's work, even if it was 30 years old, provided the most comprehensive selection of gender differences. More recent research seemed to be saying more or less the same thing. Pomerantz, Alterman and Saxon, 2002, make similar observations; Steve Maynard in Teaching Expertise, November 2009, refers to Sax, and the National Association for Single-Sex Public Education comes to similar conclusions regarding the teaching of Fibonacci numbers. And in the short time that I was given in which to write this article, I assumed that Sax seemed to have the right idea, and so I too referred to him.
"As Mr Bain correctly pointed out, this piece was meant to be amusing 'rather than scientifically rigorous'. I wrote it in this way because, having taught for 25 years, I feel that much recent research on education has been a waste of time and effort, and the resulting findings were usually obvious to most teachers.
"I also said that the GDST 'was behind this finding', not that they researched it themselves. They brought it to the attention of the public. I assumed that my remark 'Heavenly news for the GDST' would imply that as far as they were concerned, it was almost too good to be true, which rings 'alarm bells'. I apologise if that implication was not clear."
I think it is clear from the article that the intent is satirical. The research is authentic but first appeared 30 years ago, so use of the word "now" in the first paragraph is wrong. The subheading, "What does news that female pupils learn better in warmer classrooms mean for mixed-sex schools?" – which is not the responsibility of the columnist, although it would have followed from the text – is also wrong and should be changed. But I don't think the piece needs to be withdrawn entirely.
This is hardly the most egregious example of churnalism. Ms Hanson is an experienced former teacher and knows of what she speaks, but the research was not fresh and that should have been made clear. Mr Bain represents a growing group of readers whose commitment to a subject means they will check and cross-check material, using the web in a way that was virtually unknown even 15 years ago. All journalists will need to take note.