3 ms·

> The NSF itself said that sexual harassment > is a problem at the base. I'm not claiming otherwise, I was commenting on how bizarre it is to work this int

by avar 2y ago

> The NSF itself said that sexual harassment > is a problem at the base. I'm not claiming otherwise, I was commenting on how bizarre it is to work this into an article about a transport bus in Antarctica. > They surveyed women there and 59 percent > said they had been harassed. I don't think they did. Did you read the report? The survey[1] had a 24% response rate, so that 59% number is extrapolated from that, it's actually just over 14%. The report certainly contains some deeply troubling anecdotes, but (no surprise) there's a wide chasm between what it claims, and how it's been reported on. But don't take my word for it, read what they have to say on page 28: "[...]it is important to note that the survey and focus group questions were not designed to elicit information regarding the prevalence or incidence of sexual assault within USAP. This remains an effort for the future. Instead, the qualitative and quantitative data elicited extensive information regarding individuals’ experiences and perceptions. Team LDSS did not independently investigate or otherwise seek to verify the accuracy of individuals’ reporting." That 59% claim comes from a footnote on page 33 of the report. 33%/47% of men/women said "sexual assault" was a problem in the USAP, and 48%/72% of men/women said the same of "sexual assault". The 59% is then women respondents who had a "negative experience" with either assault or harassment. I don't believe that means, as you claim, that "they had been harassed". Earlier on page 30 they say: Approximately 40% of all focus group participants discussed a personal negative experience with sexual assault or sexual harassment Neither of those percentages in footnotes appear to be supported by accompanying source data. But since they go out of their way to distinguish between a "negative experience" and "personal negative experience", the 59% appears to refer to some broader category than personal experience with harassment or assault. 1. https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/documents/USAP%20SAHPR%20Report.pdf https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/documents/USAP%20SAHPR%20Report....

petsfed 2y ago
>The survey[1] had a 24% response rate, so that 59% number is extrapolated from that, it's actually just over 14%. That's not how statistical extrapolation works. Here's a recent study that uses modern statistical modelling methods to extrapolate actual harassment rates from reporting rates that suffer strongly from self-selection bias in a similar environment: [0] Perhaps they can repeat the original study in light of the suggested methods just published. 0. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2024.1461655/full https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles...
- avar 2y ago
  > That's not how statistical extrapolation works. Yes, clearly it's going to be somewhere over 14%. I'm mainly critiquing the lazy reporting here. In reality that "59%" number is a wild guess, and should be reported as such. > Here's a recent study that uses modern statistical modelling methods to extrapolate actual harassment rates from reporting rates that suffer strongly from self-selection bias in a similar environment It's really not in a similar environment at all. That study is about estimating the rates of harassment, assault etc. of professional fisheries observers. I.e. independently employed "fisheries narcs" (my paraphrasing) who are dropped onto a fishing vessel for a limited time. "Upon returning from deployment, all observers are debriefed to ensure data quality and integrity". That's a much more controlled dataset than "I hung out in Antarctica for a year, and I and 1/4 of the people that were there with me responded to this survey long afterwards, for whatever reason". Even then, they have huge error bars on their 95% confidence intervals, e.g. as noted by this revealing paragraph: > "Our estimates of observer victimization among years indicate that 0.4 to 1.8% of observers experienced assault, 22 to 34% experienced intimidation, coercion, and hostile work environments, and 9 to 43% experienced sexual harassment". So, e.g. 9%-43%. That's a pretty huge difference. In any case, we're way into the weeds here. Nothing I'm saying here is calling into question the the important underlying question here, that it certainly seems that the Antarctic program has some pretty screwed up problems with harassment etc., and how they're dealing with it. I was mainly critiquing the lazy reporting of that study, i.e. to cherry-pick some overly-specific (but ultimately wildly extrapolated) percentage like 59%, and running with that, when (as I quoted above) the very study itself you're quoting is telling you it can't and shouldn't be used like that. It's doubly unfortunate because if you page through that NSF study, there really are some pretty revealing quotes in some of the free-form answers submitted as part of the survey, clearly from people who've had a lot of time to think about and reflect on the issues they encountered in Antarctica. This one in particular stuck with me (I looked up the full quote just now, several days later): We can’t really have a zero-tolerance policy on assault and harassment because for 8.5 months there are no planes unless there is a really serious emergency. And I don’t think the program will ever fly planes in to get people out who have assaulted or harassed people. The issues with it are far too many. So, since we can’t have a zero-tolerance policy[...] Those sorts of constraints seem to both drive a lot of the problems with places like Antarctica, as well as well as being a big part of why certain people are drawn to work in those places.

by avar 2y ago

petsfed 2y ago

>The survey[1] had a 24% response rate, so that 59% number is extrapolated from that, it's actually just over 14%. That's not how statistical extrapolation works. Here's a recent study that uses modern statistical modelling methods to extrapolate actual harassment rates from reporting rates that suffer strongly from self-selection bias in a similar environment: [0] Perhaps they can repeat the original study in light of the suggested methods just published. 0. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2024.1461655/full https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles...

avar 2y ago
> That's not how statistical extrapolation works. Yes, clearly it's going to be somewhere over 14%. I'm mainly critiquing the lazy reporting here. In reality that "59%" number is a wild guess, and should be reported as such. > Here's a recent study that uses modern statistical modelling methods to extrapolate actual harassment rates from reporting rates that suffer strongly from self-selection bias in a similar environment It's really not in a similar environment at all. That study is about estimating the rates of harassment, assault etc. of professional fisheries observers. I.e. independently employed "fisheries narcs" (my paraphrasing) who are dropped onto a fishing vessel for a limited time. "Upon returning from deployment, all observers are debriefed to ensure data quality and integrity". That's a much more controlled dataset than "I hung out in Antarctica for a year, and I and 1/4 of the people that were there with me responded to this survey long afterwards, for whatever reason". Even then, they have huge error bars on their 95% confidence intervals, e.g. as noted by this revealing paragraph: > "Our estimates of observer victimization among years indicate that 0.4 to 1.8% of observers experienced assault, 22 to 34% experienced intimidation, coercion, and hostile work environments, and 9 to 43% experienced sexual harassment". So, e.g. 9%-43%. That's a pretty huge difference. In any case, we're way into the weeds here. Nothing I'm saying here is calling into question the the important underlying question here, that it certainly seems that the Antarctic program has some pretty screwed up problems with harassment etc., and how they're dealing with it. I was mainly critiquing the lazy reporting of that study, i.e. to cherry-pick some overly-specific (but ultimately wildly extrapolated) percentage like 59%, and running with that, when (as I quoted above) the very study itself you're quoting is telling you it can't and shouldn't be used like that. It's doubly unfortunate because if you page through that NSF study, there really are some pretty revealing quotes in some of the free-form answers submitted as part of the survey, clearly from people who've had a lot of time to think about and reflect on the issues they encountered in Antarctica. This one in particular stuck with me (I looked up the full quote just now, several days later): We can’t really have a zero-tolerance policy on assault and harassment because for 8.5 months there are no planes unless there is a really serious emergency. And I don’t think the program will ever fly planes in to get people out who have assaulted or harassed people. The issues with it are far too many. So, since we can’t have a zero-tolerance policy[...] Those sorts of constraints seem to both drive a lot of the problems with places like Antarctica, as well as well as being a big part of why certain people are drawn to work in those places.