From: gavan@ucthpx.uct.ac.za (Gavan Tredoux)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african,sanet.talk.politics
Subject: Re: Dissatisfaction within the SAIRR (was RE: ANC leadership wanes)
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:08:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucthpx.1992Oct14.210818.23002
Reply-To: trdgav01@ucthpx.uct.ac.za
Organization: Depts Math and Philosophy, UCT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

mark@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
: [from New Nation, 9 October 1992]
: RACE RELATIONS STAFF PROTEST
: 
: Researchers at the Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR) are
: up in arms.

Er, that should be *some researchers*. But this is the New
Nation. That's eight out of the entire staff, which is
substantial. Up in whose arms?

: The dossier was originally prepared for presentation to
: Kane-Berman.  At the time of going to press there was a
: general feeling that Kane-Berman was avoiding a meeting with
: researchers by claiming to be "too busy" and referring them
: elsewhere.

General feeling among the researchers in question one presumes,
of course we have no clue whether any of this is true, but
that's the New Nation for you.

: On Jeffery's publication the dossier stated that: "We have
: carefully analysed it and have concluded unanimously that
: this work has further undermined our credibility as an
: independent research organisation.  We believe that
: Jeffery's work is clearly partisan.  We also found the press
: release and presentations concerning Spotlight to be
: unnecessarily provocative, arrogant and antagonistic".

Nowhere is any concrete criticism offered, presumably this is
in the memorandum in question. Until someone comes up
with this (I don't have it yet) this remains a puzzle.
No analysis is sacrosanct, and any criticism should be welcomed,
but what these people seem to be objecting to is not the
research itself, but the conclusions reached. Having read the
report I'll argue anywhere that all the evidence needed to
sustain its conclusions is present in the report itself, so
the claim of partisanship is chaff. What we want is truth,
not unthinking neutrality. In this case ANC aligned groups
should be heavily criticised, and that involves abandoning
neutrality for partisanship - in favour of accuracy. HOWEVER
accuracy itself should never be abandoned. I have yet to see
any demonstration of innacuracy on Jeffery's part.

As for press releases, the SAIRR deliberately made a noise
about this, because they've had to be self-financing
since 1986 when the EEC dropped funding. They have to sell
their research.

What follows is mostly misunderstanding, motivated more by
politics than concern for defensible research.
 
: Jeffery's report falls flat on the face of its own criteria,
: the memorandum says.

How on earth do you fall flat on the face of your own
criteria. Sounds like a New Nation phrase here, but
they claim it's from the memorandum. Maybe it is, in
which case the SAIRR has some illiterate researchers.
: 
: Jeffery failed to contact the HRC, the AI and ICJ while
: berating them for failure to contact the people they blamed
: for violence, namely Inkatha and the police.

A blunder on the part of the researchers in question. Seeing that
Jeffery was reporting on reports, all that was relevant was
what the reports presented, for that is all the reader would
encounter. Post-hoc explanations by the organizations would
have nothing at all to do with innacuracies convincingly 
established by Jeffery which would be read by the *reader*.

: She used one of the Goldstone Commission reports as a
: reference point to criticise the three organisations, saying
: they opted for accounts which were critical of Inkatha.

So? Fail to see the point here.
 
: She set herself up as the authority, quoting her own
: research when dealing with disputed evidence.  The
: researchers pointed out that the SAIRR did not do any on-
: the-spot research.

This is part of the problem here. These researchers are 
primarily involved in the yearly Survey, which like all other
stuff on violence from monitors is based on media analysis.
However, Jeffery's stuff referred to is *primary* including
interviews and first-hand research on mass action, documented
in two separate volumes - none of which produced any reaction
from these people before.

: They also pointed out that Jeffery used minor inaccuracies
: to conclude that information from the HRC is "one-sided and
: simplistic".  This is despite the fact that the inaccuracies
: in numbers served neither the HRC or the cause of the ANC.

This is simply crap. A cursory glance at the report reveals
ommission of major massacres involving the ANC as antagonists
not reported at all by the HRC for example, misclassification
of incidents as vigilante related actions (always obscuring any
ANC contribution to violence) etc. This I will reveal in detail
in the rest of my series. Minor indeed, one massacre omitted 
involved some 30 people, IFP of course. 

: They pointed out that to shore up her conclusions that the
: ANC policy of "ungovernability" was responsible for the
: violence, she decontextualised the ANC policy of
: "ungovernability" to explain current violence which was
: taking place under different circumstances.

Anyone using phrases like "decontextualise" is a former
NUSAS groupie with imperfect command of language. This entire
line is beside the point - which is the innacuracies in HRC
et al reports.
 
: She does not bother to note that the policy of
: ungovernability coincided with intense repression during
: which over 35000 persons were detained.

This again makes the mistake of confusing 
*excusing* ANC involvement
with *establishing* it. Nor is it an important part of her
argument.
 
: She substantiates her finding of intimidation on a dubious
: survey of 905 urban blacks.  She extrapolates from the 272
: people who said they had been intimidated, to conclude that
: 1,75 million metropolitan blacks experienced coercion and
: intimidation during mass action in 1990/1.

This extrapolation was done by the Institute itself when the
results were released mid 1991, without any protest by the
researchers involved. All it establishes is reasonable ground
to doubt ANC innocence in the whole spiral of violence. It
is part of a whole body of evidence (which has to be tested
and weighed) which is simply *ignored* by the HRC et al.
What is dubious about the survey? Ah, but someone who
does newspaper clippings ("research") wouldn't know that
the number of people surveyed is beside th epoint, it's the
fairness of the sample. The survey was commissioned
and done by a commercial company (markinor?). No reason is
given to support the "dubious" appelation. But hang on, is
"dubious" their phrase or the New Nation's?

If all the researchers in question have to go on is the stuff
above (which fails to meet even one substantial point made
by Jeffery) then they're clearly objecting to Institute
politics rather than to Jeffery's research itself, which they
seem to be largely ingnorant of, but then they did complain
of precisely that - which is a matter for the Institute
and not us. Maybe the Institute should keep them informed. 

------Gavan Tredoux---------------------- 
Dept Mathematics, Dept Philosophy 
University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7700