{"id":7855,"date":"2010-11-01T00:30:12","date_gmt":"2010-11-01T05:30:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/?p=7855"},"modified":"2011-03-23T23:18:46","modified_gmt":"2011-03-24T04:18:46","slug":"usafa-releases-anti-climactic-climate-survey-data","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2010\/11\/01\/usafa-releases-anti-climactic-climate-survey-data\/","title":{"rendered":"USAFA Releases Anti-Climactic Climate Survey Data"},"content":{"rendered":"

As previously noted<\/a>, the US Air Force Academy responded to Freedom of Information Act requests by holding a press conference and releasing the previously withheld results<\/a> of the 2009-2010 climate survey.<\/p>\n

The release was part of an\u00a0official Air Force announcement<\/a>; the Academy announcement<\/a> contains a link\u00a0to the presentation made by USAFA Superintendent Lt Gen Michael Gould at the press conference (available here<\/a>, 5.6MB pdf).<\/p>\n

The Academy made a concerted effort to explain the results (or, more accurately,\u00a0describe how the results couldn’t be explained).\u00a0\u00a0It appears the Academy survey was “imperfect” in several respects:\u00a0 <\/p>\n

The caveats include ambiguous and vague questions that left room for multiple interpretations; changes in questions from previous surveys as well as new questions that had no trending data; and the timing of the survey, which was conducted during finals and holiday breaks.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The survey was also completely voluntary.\u00a0 While admirable in most cases, in a closed society those with “issues” on their mind — whether they are shoes to shine or axes to grind — are far more likely to spend the extra effort to participate in an otherwise optional feedback session.<\/p>\n

The Academy also acknowledged the survey was perception<\/em>-based (a “feelings” survey, as others have said).\u00a0 This manifested itself\u00a0in at least one demonstrable instance:\u00a0 Cadets indicated females and minorities were less likely to have leadership opportunities at USAFA.\u00a0 However, a factual analysis of cadet leadership positions showed “fair representation across the leadership spectrum.”\u00a0 Thus, the survey showed the cadets felt<\/em> one way, when in fact reality<\/em> was “better.”\u00a0 This “perception does not equal reality” fallacy may have occurred in other areas of the survey as well.<\/p>\n

The result receiving\u00a0the most attention was the headline that “41% of non-Christian AF cadets cite proselytizing<\/a>.”<\/p>\n

An Air Force Academy survey found that 41 percent of cadets who identified themselves as non-Christian said they were subjected to unwanted proselytizing at least once or twice last year.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It is worth noting that while “41%” sounds dramatic, it accounts for 32 cadets of the\u00a04400-member cadet wing (or 0.7%).\u00a0 Even then, the data is difficult to analyze because of the weakness of the survey itself.\u00a0 For example, the<\/p>\n

survey asked cadets how often during the previous 12 months they had been in situations when someone subjected them to unwanted proselytizing and gave five choices: very often, often, sometimes, once or twice and never.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

With 80% of the answer choices in the affirmative, the question appears to presume<\/em> some level of proselytizing.\u00a0 In addition, the survey did not specify whether the “someone” was a superior, subordinate, peer, military, civilian, or even associated with the Academy at all.<\/p>\n

More importantly, the survey did not define “unwanted proselytizing,” meaning cadets were free to interpret it as they saw fit.\u00a0 For example, a non-Christian cadet invited to church by his roommate may have said he experienced “unwanted proselytizing,” despite the fact such conduct is not unreasonable and is actually perfectly permissible — and is therefore not an actionable “problem.”<\/p>\n

The problem with a survey of this nature — a problem Gould likely foresaw — is that numbers can be made to say anything.<\/p>\n

For example, based on the survey data:<\/p>\n