We have not disclosed the identity of specific organisations.
Primary schools in the UK are highly interested in developing the reading skills of their pupils to the maximum extent that inherent ability allows. The Government has been trying to force schools to follow a particular kind of approach to the teaching of reading, known as Systematic Synthetic Phonics (SSP).
Experienced and highly-skilled researchers in Higher Education Institutions, both in the UK and USA have shown repeatedly that the research evidence for the use of SSP in preference to other approaches is very weak. Some very isolated studies do support SSP but these are mostly inferior quality studies. In spite of this, the promotion of use of SSP by officials continues unabated and attempts to reveal the nature of the research evidence to Ministers in the government have been thwarted by officials who have also persistently misrepresented the findings from the available research in public.
We helped various bodies to challenge this approach
A nationally-known and highly esteemed research company, when seeking to promote the value of its research services published a report which claimed to show how use of its research services would be very helpful to potential customers. It did this by making claims of substantial statistical evidence that was not only seriously defective but also inaccurately reported to support unsubstantiated claims.
We helped a number of potential customers and the research report was withdrawn
A nationally known research company carried out some research on a very important subject for a major national organisation doing vital work for the Government. The research was trying to show that the national organisation was achieving the impact it sought, so justifying continued Government funding. The research was of very poor quality and was badly mismanaged so the findings that were published could never be trusted.
We exposed this.
A well-known academic conducted some research on a very sensitive area of potential child sexual abuse but conducted the data analysis using incorrect methods that led to a completely incorrect conclusion being drawn. This could have led not only to money being unwisely spent on a particular child-abuse prevention strategy but also led to serious harm to children.
We helped a client in exposing this