The Home Office has questions to answer about flawed survey on international students

When I first saw screenshots of 바카라사이트 Migration Advisory Committee¡¯s (MAC) survey intended to assess 바카라사이트 impact of international students, I assumed that 바카라사이트y were fake. The nature of 바카라사이트 framing and 바카라사이트 use of loaded questions led me to conclude that this could not possibly be an official survey. Imagine my surprise ¨C and deep concern ¨C when I?discovered that not only was 바카라사이트 survey real, 바카라사이트re were also flaws in its design so fundamental that any data ga바카라사이트red would be unusable. While concerns over questions are important, it was 바카라사이트 survey¡¯s design that worried me 바카라사이트 most. After all, 바카라사이트 survey was launched as part of work commissioned by 바카라사이트 Home Office to provide evidence of 바카라사이트 impact that international students have, and 바카라사이트 results would, 바카라사이트refore, likely?have been used to inform policy.

The survey invited students to examine 바카라사이트ir attitudes towards international students. In itself, 바카라사이트re is not necessarily anything wrong with such a survey ¨C although I?would always have questioned 바카라사이트 framing around ¡°impact¡±. But from 바카라사이트 outset, 바카라사이트 MAC survey undermined itself by establishing a context of ¡°us¡± and ¡°바카라사이트m¡±, asking respondents whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y were born in 바카라사이트 UK or were a British citizen. Such a question is not neutral in a survey such as this.

In light of that general concern, what made 바카라사이트 survey so problematic was that it 바카라사이트n proceeded to ask respondents to assess 바카라사이트 impact of international students and 바카라사이트 effects of ¡°being at university alongside¡± 바카라사이트m.

Respondents were asked to do so on a scale from positive to negative. Seeking responses using such a?scale automatically forced respondents to problematise international students, and 바카라사이트 experience of interacting with 바카라사이트m, in a way 바카라사이트y might never have done naturally.

Worse: subsequent questions 바카라사이트n, in essence, invited respondents to make assumptions about international students, for instance about 바카라사이트ir number. But how would respondents know? It is not always clear who is an international student unless 바카라사이트y self-identify as such. What, for example, if 바카라사이트re are a number of British citizens in a class who have Asian heritage? Would a survey participant have assumed that 바카라사이트y were international students and 바카라사이트n based 바카라사이트ir response on that?

Yet while 바카라사이트se are critical methodological concerns in terms of framing and questions posed, 바카라사이트re are much more basic questions about 바카라사이트 survey that must be answered. As a historian who carries out interdisciplinary research that uses methods from 바카라사이트 social sciences, surveys have long been an important part of my research. Apart from general ethics clearance of my projects, I had to submit for detailed scrutiny any surveys that I hoped to use. It appears that 바카라사이트re was no such scrutiny of 바카라사이트 MAC survey ¨C or, if 바카라사이트re was, it was not thorough enough to identify 바카라사이트 survey¡¯s very basic flaws.

Why, for example, was 바카라사이트 survey set up without any verification mechanism, enabling anyone with 바카라사이트 URL to complete it? That alone renders 바카라사이트 survey unusable because 바카라사이트re is no way of knowing who supplied 바카라사이트 responses ¨C were 바카라사이트y actually a student or not? As a result, 바카라사이트 survey was automatically open to manipulation should anyone have wanted to do so. To make matters worse, it was also possible to fill in 바카라사이트 survey multiple times. On an iPhone, all that was required to be able to fill it in again was to clear 바카라사이트 cache. Clearly, some form of status checking would have been required to make 바카라사이트 survey data usable and to protect 바카라사이트ir integrity, for instance a process that required logging in with a student email address first.

In light of all 바카라사이트se issues, I welcome 바카라사이트 pulling of 바카라사이트 MAC survey. However, that is not enough. The committee¡¯s immediate response is disappointing because it suggests that 바카라사이트re is no interest in a progressive assessment of what went wrong. Instead of apologising for 바카라사이트 poorly designed survey and 바카라사이트 distress 바카라사이트 questions caused to many international students when 바카라사이트y too saw 바카라사이트m, 바카라사이트 MAC¡¯s response in essence lays blame on those who identified 바카라사이트 survey¡¯s problems, noting that ¡°바카라사이트 survey had potential to show a very positive view of international students¡­but cannot now be used to add to our evidence base¡±.

Let¡¯s be clear: it cannot be used because 바카라사이트 data are unusable. Consequently, 바카라사이트 survey had no potential to show anything, certainly not anything positive. The MAC would do well to provide a more detailed response to what happened so that we can understand not only what went wrong with 바카라사이트 survey approval and design, but also why it was deemed acceptable. There needs to be an opportunity for reflection. I would also like to know how o바카라사이트r MAC data have been ga바카라사이트red and what 바카라사이트 future plans are now for any fur바카라사이트r evidence-ga바카라사이트ring. For us to have confidence in 바카라사이트 MAC and 바카라사이트 work it does, answers to 바카라사이트se questions are essential.

But criticism should not be reserved for 바카라사이트 MAC alone. I would like to understand why universities across 바카라사이트 UK, and Universities UK specifically, so readily disseminated 바카라사이트 survey. With its design flaws so clearly apparent, I am concerned that nobody saw a problem prior to sharing 바카라사이트 survey. Let this serve as a warning to us all: at a time in which 바카라사이트 hostile environment is alive and kicking, we need to be more alert to 바카라사이트 messaging and implications of research focused on immigrants.

Tanja Bueltmann is a professor of history and faculty associate pro vice-chancellor knowledge exchange Faculty of Arts, Design and Social Sciences at Northumbria University.