and this is what journalism looks like: research standards and policy exchange (updated)

I watched the Newsnight report raising doubts about the quality of Policy Exchange's research - and the confrontational interview following it where the head of research defended their study into extremist literature by arguing - in part - that it got a lot of press coverage. Sorry, no.

Yardage of coverage has nothing to do with the quality of the journalism, particularly when the pack instinct of the British media kicks in. To echo Garry at BSaSC:

Unlike almost all of the rest of the British media which reported the P.E. headline grabber unquestioningly, Newsnight actually investigated the veracity of what they were being asked to report. Like, you know, journalists.

The willingness of other news outlets to accept a report on face value is not proof of malevolence or cowardice on the part of the one organisation that actually chooses to read what they've been sent.

Despite the bluster directed at the BBC for being uniquely awkward, this isn't the first time that serious questions have been raised about methodology - Garry points to the series of mild and polite posts written by Dr Marranci of the University of Aberdeen which ask very simple, clean questions about the research process, which the author of the report (turning up in the comments) chose to ignore.

The speed with which Policy Exchange has jumped to threats of legal action in response to the specific questions raised in the Newsnight report is not encouraging. On the fact of it, it resembles an attempt to silence criticism, rather than address it - particularly as an explicit threat to prosecute was made ahead of the broadcast. The Policy Exchange board apparently met yesterday to discuss such action: nothing has been announced yet, and it's difficult to work out exactly which statements could be actionable.

The appeal that the report represents a "greater truth" about elements of extremism in British Islamicism is also dishonest - given that this piece of research was presented as firm academic proof, rather than a figurative description. The claims being made were assumed to be compelling entirely because they were presented as having an indisputable factual basis, of this piece of research being a uniquely detailed national study.

To examine method in the face of such claims is not irrelevant: with academic research, it is often the entire game. That the Policy Exchange both commissioned and published the research themselves without independent review does not strengthen the claim to academic veracity - as a working academic, self-publication would do little or nothing for my employment prospects or reputation.

If you want to make strong claims under the title of academic research, then you have to put up with people strongly examining your methods and results. That's what makes it academic research. In short, any attempt to sue will most likely result in further analysis of the kind that has seeming caused Policy Exchange so much discomfort.

Update: the most recent comment from Policy Exchange announces that they are "in legal consultations about action in this matter" - a marked retreat from the pre-broadcast threat that they would pursue the matter "relentlessly, to trial or capitulation."

Afterthought: technically, they didn't say who would capitulate..