Skip to main contentSkip to navigation

Big Brothel research 'seriously flawed'

This article is more than 14 years old
Poppy Project research into sex workers "was based on flawed data" and "cannot be substantiated"

Top academics involved in sex research have launched an attack on "seriously flawed" research into British brothels.

The academics claim that research into prostitution in the UK published last month by the Poppy Project, which is partly funded by the Ministry of Justice, is inaccurate and unethical.

The research in the Big Brothel report "exhibits serious flaws in its mode of data collection and analysis," they warn.

The group of 27 key figures in sex work research from prestigious universities across the UK and overseas claim the report was conducted with neither ethical approval nor acknowledgement of evidence and co-authored by a journalist known for producing anti-prostitution findings.

The Poppy Project has received £5.8m in government funding and the women and equality minister, Harriet Harman, has publicly endorsed the organisation.

The report's findings lend weight to Home Office moves to make it against the law to pay for sex.

The row comes just days before the October 8 deadline of a Home Office consultation into proposals to amend existing legislation on prostitution and brothels.

The proposals, which will go before parliament in December, would create a new criminal offence of paying for sex with a person "controlled for gain", enable police to close brothels and change the definition of kerb-crawling.

The academics, led by Dr Teela Sanders at Leeds University and Dr Belinda Brooks-Gordon at Birkbeck, University of London, have condemned the research.

Their response, sent to the Poppy Project and Harman, yesterday states: "The report builds a damning picture of indoor sex work on the basis of data whose reliability and representativeness is extremely doubtful and a methodological approach that would be considered unethical by most professional social researchers.

"It makes claims about trafficking, exploitation and the current working conditions of women and men employed in the indoor sex industry on the basis of that data," the response says.

"These claims cannot be substantiated in terms of the methodology, the data presented or in terms of wider, ethically approved, peer reviewed academic evidence.

"In short, the report does not provide any evidence concerning the current working conditions of women and men employed in indoor sex work venues in the UK."

The Big Brothel report, co-authored by journalist and campaigner Julie Bindel and Helen Atkins, received huge media coverage last month.

But critics accused it of conflating fears over trafficking with general prostitution.

Brooks-Gordon said: "You can't just churn out political propaganda and say it's research. You end up with very dangerous policy.

"The government has to bear responsibility if they have put tenders out for research and the people carrying out that research are not following full ethics procedures.

She called the report a "shocker". "Not only is the methodology flawed but it shows a complete lack of understanding about the sex industry."

One of the academic signatories, Dr Petra Boynton, lecturer in health research at University College London, said the research had implications for how academic researchers conduct their work.

"If you are going to research this area you are allowed to have a personal view and agenda but you can't go into it without following due process.

"If the government feels it is exempt from ethics approval it begs the question 'why do we need to bother?'," she said. "There's no point in making sure people are getting ethical approval and measuring what they are supposed to be. It's shoddy at best."

Poppy said that the Big Brothel project was not commissioned or funded by the government.

The academics warn that the report's research evidence is based on telephone calls with brothel receptionists rather visiting or speaking to sex workers themselves and is therefore unreliable.

"There has been a wealth of empirical research conducted on indoor sex work, and there are established methods of gaining access to sex workers and others working in sex work venues," the response states.

"The authors make no attempt to use these established methods, or efforts to contact sex workers themselves.

"The anecdotal indicators of trafficking presented by the Poppy Project report are just that, and cannot be considered as evidence of an accurate or reliable nature, being obtained from those who answer phones in venues under misleading circumstances."

In a statement, the authors insisted they wanted to see a balanced debate of the issue.

"It is rare for a report such as Big Brothel to achieve significant media coverage, and it is essential in the interests of furthering the debate to provide a counter-balance to the disproportionately positive media focus on prostitution enjoyed by those who substantially profit from the sex industry, such as pornographers, brothel owners and lap dance clubs," they said.
"Many of the academics listed in the response have conducted research which offers a wide range of evidence underpinning the extremely high levels of risk and harms associated with working in the sex industry, although this is not referenced or acknowledged anywhere in the response."

They added that the report was independent and not commissioned by central government. "The Poppy Project Support team is funded by the Ministry of Justice, which had no dealings whatsoever with this research.

"The Poppy Project is not an academic institution, and has never claimed to be, nor does our report claim, or intend to be, an academic piece of work.

"The suggestion that only academics should be studying this area is nothing short of professional arrogance and insulting to the vast expertise and incomparable knowledge developed by NGOs, both domestically and internationally."

The response is available in full here.

A government spokeswoman said: "The government funds the Poppy project to provide support services to victims of human trafficking. It does not provide funding for their research, which is a completely independent function of their organisation."

This article was amended on Wednesday October 8 2008, to make clear that the research referred to here was not government-funded.

Most viewed

Most viewed