This letter is in response to Matt Frohlich’s opinion piece on “1 in 4 College Women is Not Sexually Assaulted.” As a criminologist who has performed research in this area on NDSU’s campus, I am concerned about some of the piece’s information. Here are the points that need discussion.

First, questioning the “1 in 4” statistic itself has merit, but what does “no credible evidence” mean? Does it mean that if there is some research that supports it and some that does not, it’s not at all credible? Despite Mr. Frohlich’s insistence that this statistic is used uncritically or contradictory findings are ignored, most published research in this area investigates the validity of this statistic. Some research supports it (20% to 25% of women in this age group), while other research finds it to be lower (5% to 10%). My own research at NDSU in 2011-2012 found approximately 13% of women experienced sexual assault (attempted or completed) according to state legal definitions. One consistent finding, however, is that women of this age group are at the highest risk of sexual victimization than any other age group.

Second, why are there these differences? It’s because of the differences in methods, definitions, and populations or universities. The Bureau of Justice Statistics report that Mr. Frohlich cites clearly states that this is why the results of their study and the other studies differ. Does that mean one study is more valid than another? Not necessarily. Each one has merits and drawbacks. Yes, the Campus Survey on Sexual Assault has flaws. Yes, the National Crime Victimization Survey is a good victimization survey. There are, however, numerous flaws with the NCVS; for example, some individuals might not be asked multiple questions regarding sexual assault if they did not respond affirmatively to the screening question. Additionally, other victimization surveys are more interested in sexual victimization overall rather than sexual assault. The research with a broader focus will uncover more victimization. For example, in my research, slightly over 21% of women on campus had experienced some form of sexual coercion or assault. Each of these studies clearly discuss their flaws, so that people know why results may differ, not results are cherry-picked to best fit certain viewpoints. Also, longitudinal studies are highly useful, but unless one is tracking trends or trying to infer causality, cross-sectional research may be as valid.

Third, Mr. Frohlich implies that only legal definitions of crimes determine harm done. Does this mean that one cannot, by definition, be harmed unless that behavior is illegal? Legal definitions of crime can and do change. For example, only within the last 30 years have states eliminated the marital rape exception to sexual assault laws. Also, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports expanded the definition of rape to include multiple forms of sexual assault; prior to 2013, this crime was defined extremely narrowly. Finally, not all of these definitions we use fit under assault; some can fit under crimes such as sexual imposition or gross sexual imposition.

Fourth, why highlight that college women are at lower risk than women their age not attending college? Not all research supports this finding; some does and some doesn’t. Part of the reason why there is a programmatic focus on college women is because they are a “captive population” for which universities have responsibility; therefore, these programs are easier to implement.

Overall, it would behoove everyone to look at the breadth of the research, including the methods and the findings of all, rather than relying on ideology. This reliance fools us into critiquing research that does not support our view and assuming that the research that does support it is automatically better.

Amy J. Stichman, associate professor of practice in criminal justice